Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers.

[cryptasm]

I'm starting to think that the "ban" applied only to two posters in this thread. 

[Wilikon]

It’s the ultimate in going green. An environmental science professor is making a 33-square-foot dumpster his new home for the next year.

His name is Dr. Jeff Wilson, but since embarking on this journey, he’s now going by Professor Dumpster.

He teaches at Huston-Tillotson University in Austin, Texas, and received his Ph.D. from Harvard.

The goal is to embrace energy efficiency, and to prove that it is possible to live on a smaller scale — a much smaller scale.

This whole project revolves around using one percent of what an average American uses: one percent of the water, energy and waste.

“We really needed some sort of excitement around science, sustainability and technology,” says Wilson.

He says the idea came to him over two years ago. Since then he’s been recruiting a world-class team of professors, scientists and environmentalists to make his idea a reality.

“My hypothesis is that my life will be better,” Wilson says. “I’ll be fulfilling a richer life by living a smaller life.”


Dr. Jeff Wilson checks out his new 33 square foot dumpster home. (Credit: @profdumpster/Instagram)


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/02/professor-goes-green-hell-live-in-dumpster-for-a-year/

[Wilikon]

The prohibition and attempted eradication of drugs can be a nightmare for the climate and environment. Particularly in Latin America, the fight against drug production has led to deforestation, widespread contamination with toxic chemicals, and contributed to a warming climate.

Part of the problem is when drug war policies unintentionally destroy non-drug plants that should be converting CO2 to oxygen and slowing warming. Colombia uses aerial fumigation with glyphosate herbicides, popularly known by the trademark Roundup, to kill coca crops that are used to make cocaine. But glyphosate doesn’t just kill coca. It’s designed to kill any plants it comes into contact with. And since planes have sprayed 1.6 million hectares with clouds of the herbicide between 1996 and 2012 — in the world’s second-most biodiverse country — the amount of unintended plant destruction is huge due to imprecision and human error. The Colombian government received 6,500 public complaints in 2002 alone for destroyed food crops, environmental damage, and harm to human health.

Fumigation is only the beginning of the deforestation. As drug producers are driven from their growing sites by eradication efforts, they go deeper into remote forests and national parks. Drug cultivators abandon land that’s been clear-cut and often poisoned by herbicides to cut down new forests, and they don’t just clear land for coca. The cultivators also need clear land to grow food, and to build roads, houses, and even airstrips. Without access to safe disposal or any regulation to require it, drug manufacturers dump toxic chemical byproducts wherever they can, polluting the land and water.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/05/3244421/drug-war-climate-change/

[Wilikon]

Satellite data shows that Arctic sea ice was 50 per cent thicker in Autumn 2013 than it was in Autumn 2012, according to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

Data from the European Space Agency’s (ESA’s) CryoSat satellite which is equipped to measure the thickness of sea ice using radars shows that Arctic sea ice volumes grew by 50 per cent last year. This is due to an increase in ice thickness, since sea ice extent declined by around 3 per cent.

In a statement issued on 5 February, the NSIDC said: “Preliminary measurements from the CryoSat show that the volume of Arctic sea ice in autumn 2013 was about 50% higher than in the autumn of 2012. In October 2013, CryoSat measured approximately 9,000 cubic kilometers (approximately 2,200 cubic miles) of sea ice compared to 6,000 cubic kilometers (approximately 1,400 cubic miles) in October 2012.”

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/latest-data-shows-arctic-ice-volume-has-increased.html

 

[Spendulus]

It’s the ultimate in going green. An environmental science professor is making a 33-square-foot dumpster his new home for the next year.....


Dr. Jeff Wilson checks out his new 33 square foot dumpster home. (Credit: @profdumpster/Instagram)


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/02/professor-goes-green-hell-live-in-dumpster-for-a-year/

Now I know a lot of people are going to just have to call the number on the dumpster and ask for it to be emptied....

[Wilikon]

                                   

                                   


Environmentalists and Democrats often cite a “97 percent” consensus among climate scientists about global warming. But they never cite estimates that 95 percent of climate models predicting global temperature rises have been wrong.

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

“I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like ‘most warming since the 1950s is human caused’ or ‘97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming’, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good. Yet, that is the direction we are heading,” Spencer wrote on his blog.




http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/

[Spendulus]

                                   

                                   


Environmentalists and Democrats often cite a “97 percent” consensus among climate scientists about global warming. But they never cite estimates that 95 percent of climate models predicting global temperature rises have been wrong.

Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”

“I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like ‘most warming since the 1950s is human caused’ or ‘97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming’, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good. Yet, that is the direction we are heading,” Spencer wrote on his blog.




http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/11/report-95-percent-of-global-warming-models-are-wrong/

Well you could never post that or say that on Reddit.

Infidel!

[Schleicher]

Pacific trade winds stall global surface warming—for now

The strengthening of the Pacific trade winds began during the 1990s and continues today. Previously, no climate models have incorporated a trade wind strengthening of the magnitude observed, and these models failed to capture the hiatus in warming. Once the trade winds were added by the researchers, the global average temperatures very closely resembled the observations during the hiatus.

[Spendulus]

Pacific trade winds stall global surface warming—for now

The strengthening of the Pacific trade winds began during the 1990s and continues today. Previously, no climate models have incorporated a trade wind strengthening of the magnitude observed, and these models failed to capture the hiatus in warming. Once the trade winds were added by the researchers, the global average temperatures very closely resembled the observations during the hiatus.

This is called "Hindcasting".

"Forecasting" is not "Hindcasting".

On a technical note, I would suggest that this particular bandaid "strengthening of the Pacific trade winds" is not an answer to the question, but simply evidence of movement of latent heat.  You can't have it both ways when and how you want it.

In any case, the models have always had one or another component being tuned to adjust to past climatic behavior.  This will not result in increased accuracy.

Regional and local weather of course is a different matter.

[Wilikon]

The first Earth Day was April 22, 1970. It was also Lenin's hundredth birthday. The coincidence was not intentional.

In fact, part of the point of Earth Day was to distance the nascent environmentalist movement from New Left critiques of consumer society, suburban development, and nuclear waste. In an attempt to avoid charges of "watermelon" politics - green on the outside, red on the inside - the message of the early environmental movement, as one Greenpeace slogan explicitly stated, was "I'm not a Red, I'm a Green." As environmentalism went mainstream, green nonprofits grew rich and powerful on corporate donations and adopted conciliatory strategies aimed at greening the world one brand name at a time.


[...]
The failure of the American left to engage more substantially on environmental issues at home has real consequences for the expansion of neoliberalism worldwide.

The history of environmentalism is littered with Malthusianism, ecological determinism, biological essentialism, and neocolonial conservationism. Left skepticism of – or perhaps more accurately, indifference to – engagement with ecological politics is certainly understandable. But we’re not talking about preserving an idealized concept of pristine, untouched nature – we’re talking about the world we choose to make, and the world we’ll have to live in.

Green dominates the environmental landscape, from the light greenwash of “sustainable lifestyles” to the dark green of deep ecologists. But environmentalism is also black lung disease in coal-mining towns and toxic brownfields in urban neighborhoods, the iridescent sheen of an oil spill and the translucent white of melting polar ice caps.

And so I cringe a bit at the term ecosocialism – it’s too earth-toned. What we need is a cyborg socialism that points not to the primacy of ecology, but to the integration of natural and social, organic and industrial, ecological and technological; that recognizes human transformations of the natural world without simply asserting domination over it.

http://www.peoplesworld.org/toward-cyborg-socialism/

[Spendulus]

...history of environmentalism is littered with Malthusianism, ecological determinism, biological essentialism, and neocolonial conservationism....

But almost no one is taught or understoods this history.

Add to the list of litter...

fascism, totalitarian concepts, 'sustainability' used to keep third world people down, and eugenics....

[AnonyMint]

Occam's Razor applies.

AGW is proven fraud. We even hacked their emails and caught them admitting they were modifying temperature data, cherry picking models to fit their desired projections, and moving thermometers from shady grassland to concreted areas in direct sunlight. Please don't expect us to reprove every time they relaunch their junk science again.

Energy is always conserved. Erecting Coasian barriers just causes a bottleneck and then the rush back to catch up with the external entropy means abrupt adjustment (e.g. megadeath, culling the population, taxing above the Laffer limit, etc).

No one can top-down manage the trend to maximum entropy.

I wish these self-important, do-gooders would understand the harm they do. George Carlin was spot on. His modern man rap is cool.

[Spendulus]

Occam's Razor applies.

AGW is proven fraud. We even hacked their emails and caught them admitting they were modifying temperature data, cherry picking models to fit their desired projections, and moving thermometers from shady grassland to concreted areas in direct sunlight. Please don't expect us to reprove every time they relaunch their junk science again.

Energy is always conserved. Erecting Coasian barriers just causes a bottleneck and then the rush back to catch up with the external entropy means abrupt adjustment (e.g. megadeath, culling the population, taxing above the Laffer limit, etc).

No one can top-down manage the trend to maximum entropy.

I wish these self-important, do-gooders would understand the harm they do. George Carlin was spot on. His modern man rap is cool.

There's a certain fraction of the human race that has evolved as authoritarian controllers, and that's what they compulsively do.  So it's not quite correct to brush them off as do-gooders.  They want not to tell but to force their ideas on you me and everybody.  In quite a few cases, they are both stupider and more ignorant than us.

[DieJohnny]

In other news, the end of the last ice age and melting of glaciers in the Northern hemisphere was proven to be from dinosaur farts, which ultimately led to their own demise.

climate change deniers are not denying that glaciers used to be here and now they are not, they are denying that scientists are unbiased, and they are denying that climate change should be THE driver to economic and regulatory policies.

[AnonyMint]

The litmus test is if a theory or philosophy requires that we top-down control the human race, then we know:

• It is facetious because the top-down "fix" can't be accomplished.
• Thus it must be a wolf in sheepskin.
• It is insane.

Facts on the AGW fraud:
https://www.google.com/search?q=site:esr.ibiblio.org+AGW

Edit to insert follow up:

The litmus test is if a theory or philosophy requires that we top-down control the human race, then we know:

• It is facetious because the top-down "fix" can't be accomplished.
• Thus it must be a wolf in sheepskin.
• It is insane.

Agreed.

Similarly if a theory or philosophy requires that we eliminate all top-down imposed constraints on human behavior, then we know:

• It is facetious because the the removal of all top-down "authority" can't be accomplished.
• Thus it must be a wolf in sheepskin.
• It is insane.

 

Of course. The AGW deniers are not proposing such insanity. Who is?

Religion. Thus AGW = religion. Neither can be falsified.

Impaler you have disappointed me. I can't fathom how you can deny that falsifiability is required by the scientific method. AGW can't be falsified. If it is impossible to prove that something is false, then it is also impossible to prove it is true. AGW is masturbation.

I no longer view you as a rational and sane person.

Of course. The AGW deniers are not proposing such insanity. Who is?

Egoist Anarachist do.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoist_anarchism

Like the fringe environmentalists advocating massive culling of the population every movement has its fair share of crazies.

How ironic that he required a political Union of Egoists in order to accomplish his goals to end politics.

[Wilikon]

Occam's Razor applies.

AGW is proven fraud. We even hacked their emails and caught them admitting they were modifying temperature data, cherry picking models to fit their desired projections, and moving thermometers from shady grassland to concreted areas in direct sunlight. Please don't expect us to reprove every time they relaunch their junk science again.

Energy is always conserved. Erecting Coasian barriers just causes a bottleneck and then the rush back to catch up with the external entropy means abrupt adjustment (e.g. megadeath, culling the population, taxing above the Laffer limit, etc).

No one can top-down manage the trend to maximum entropy.

I wish these self-important, do-gooders would understand the harm they do. George Carlin was spot on. His modern man rap is cool.

There's a certain fraction of the human race that has evolved as authoritarian controllers, and that's what they compulsively do.  So it's not quite correct to brush them off as do-gooders.  They want not to tell but to force their ideas on you me and everybody.  In quite a few cases, they are both stupider and more ignorant than us.

In quite a few cases, they end up killing millions of humans...

[AnonyMint]

Describe an experiment where I could even have the opportunity to definitively proven that AGW is false.

Nonsense. This is not science. It is religion and politics.

You all are insane.

[Spendulus]

Describe an experiment where I could even have the opportunity to definitively proven that AGW is false.

Nonsense. This is not science. It is religion and politics.

You all are insane.

Such an experiment would have to be done from space, would require more than one satellite. 

It would require very, very sensitive instruments monitoring moment to moment infra red emissions.

The goal would be to actually assay the "bottling up of heat" per the supposed "Greenhouse effect".    By comparing day to night changes in IR emissions, one could develop a model of response of the atmosphere to heat, and know the rate of change of temperature with outbound emissions.

There might be technical reasons why this is impractical or could not be done.  However, without it, even the "greenhouse effect" is only a poor conjecture.

[AnonyMint]

Describe an experiment where I could even have the opportunity to definitively proven that AGW is false.

Nonsense. This is not science. It is religion and politics.

You all are insane.

Such an experiment would have to be done from space, would require more than one satellite.  

It would require very, very sensitive instruments monitoring moment to moment infra red emissions.

The goal would be to actually assay the "bottling up of heat" per the supposed "Greenhouse effect".    By comparing day to night changes in IR emissions, one could develop a model of response of the atmosphere to heat, and know the rate of change of temperature with outbound emissions.

There might be technical reasons why this is impractical or could not be done.  However, without it, even the "greenhouse effect" is only a poor conjecture.

And you'd need to isolate all other possible complex interaction of variables such as make the sun constant or measure over 1000s of years to statistically isolate the other oscillations we've seen throughout history, etc.. In short, it is impossible.

thanks

(I am so tired of hearing from self-important, do-gooders who want to stomp on the free market. I was in California too long I guess. Now they want to tax breathing, i.e. carbon, so they can protect their perfect suburban habitat of manicured lawns. Spain even taxes sunlight. Efficiency and conservation? It is always the other guy. I program from a Nipa Hut and there is no lawn nor sidewalk rather chaotic natural weeds and mud. So please don't tell me about conservation. Do it. Instead they always want to spend other people's money. Guard your wallet! That is what this thread is about accomplishing.)

[Wilikon]

President Barack Obama offered the desperate farmers and farmworkers of the drought-stricken Central Valley a desultory relief package last week: $1 billion for a "climate resilience fund," plus "summer meals" and various other kinds of aid. For a president who boasts of his willingness to use executive action, it was a pathetic display of sophistry, full of mumbles about how water management is not a "zero-sum game"--though in this case, it is.


As the Investor's Business Daily and countless others have noted, water management in California is a trade-off between the needs of farmers and the demands of the environmental movement, which has embraced the delta smelt, an obscure endangered species in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River delta. The Democrats, and Obama, have supported the environmentalists over the farmers--and the subsequent flushing of California's reservoirs.

It may be true that the delta smelt is a species on which the whole regional ecosystem depends, and that its disappearance could have a negative effect on fishing, among other impacts. But that calls for wise management involving all stakeholders--not the blunt instrument of the federal courts, which utopian environmental activists have used precisely because they do not want to have to face the real challenges of water conservation.

Predictably, Obama used his appearance in Fresno to tout climate change as the cause of the drought, as well as to offer spending on climate change as the solution. It is precisely because of a hyperfocus on climate change, however, that there has been no progress on solutions to California's water problem. Both the state and federal governments have been seized with a potential problem rather than a glaring resource management issue.

The same seems to be somewhat true of the policy community. At the Rand Corporation, which is based in Santa Monica (full disclosure: my wife is a Ph.D. Fellow at the Pardee Rand Graduate School), policy analyst David Groves has done valuable work on the challenges facing California water management as a result of climate change. However, at a lecture in 2011, he warned his audience: "Unfortunately, I don't have the silver bullet solutions to climate change for California's water problems. I'm sorry if that's why you were coming today."

Groves does have some useful advice, however. In a report prepared in 2013 with Evan Bloom for the California Department of Water Resources, he suggests that increasing the efficiency of water use, as well as improving the state's existing water infrastructure, can best mitigate the impacts of a warmer, drier future for California.

The only way that current water management processes might succeed, he suggests, is if precipitation increases--an unlikely outcome. (Perhaps President Obama, who seemed to promise on the campaign trail in 2008 that he would be able to change global weather, has something like that in mind when he claims water is not a "zero-sum game.") So, Groves implies, it is necessary to change current policy. But Obama is offering no new ideas.

Climate change has proved a diversion from the practical scientific and political problem of managing water problems that scientists say have nothing to do with rising global temperatures. There has been little movement on developing new reservoir infrastructure, or upgrading old management to deal with new environmental concerns without cutting farmers off entirely. That is why the president's "aid" merely adds insult to injury.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/16/Planning-for-Climate-Change-Has-Made-California-s-Water-Crisis-Worse